aa5874

You have NOT found any flaw in my argument. You just make the same erroroneous claims.

It is a fact that the short gMark does NOT make any statement that God Sacrificied his Son because he LOVED US.

The claim that God Sacrificied his Son because he LOVED Mankind is Found ONLY in the LATER Gospel story, the Pauline writings and Later Epistles.

No such love is found in the short gMark--the Markan Jesus does NOT even want the outsiders to be converted.

Romans 5.8 KJVGalatians 2:20 KJVEphesians 5:2 KJV Also in the LATER Epistles--We learn that God loved mankind when he Sacrificied his Son.

No such love is expressed in the short gMark.

1 John 4:10 KJV Now, examine the earliest Jesus story in gMark---Jesus had NO LOVE for the outsiders--they can go to Hell.

Mark 4 KJV Where is the Love of God in gMark?? Where is the Love of God in gMatthew??

The Markan Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline writings.

Duvduv

YOU say that GMark preceded the epistles, and yet not a single Pauline epistle mentions John the Baptist, Mary, Jerusalem, Herod, Nazareth, Galilee, etc.

SO HOW CAN YOU BE SO SURE OF THIS CHRONOLOGY AND THAT THE EPISTLE WRITER(S) KNEW ABOUT GMARK?! HOW do you know that the epistles simply reflect certain ideas floating around that had not yet been put down on paper in any gospel? How DO YOU KNOW?

You don't have to keep repeating your point. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT I WAS ASKING.

Chili

I agree that the word fiction is wrong for a word story telling us about the transformation from human into man that in the world around us we simply call metamorphosis and we all know what that means.

So what the ancients believed may be interesting to read, but in the end it is just their way of expressing the difference between right and wrong, and that difference in essence has never changed and always will be just the same.

The problem then was just the same as it is today, wherein those who claim to know have PhD's behind their name that gives them the right to talk while in fact they do not know.

And the real problem is that they get paid for saying what they write and make the poor man pay, while in fact the poor man knows and that is what the gospels tried to show. Mark describes a typical evangelistc one night stand event that is 'reform driven' (i.e. Moses, Luther, Hitler, Billy Graham as examples that the Inquistor could spot already from a mile away, and still can today).Of course he was and that showed the need for John because Matthew and Mark went back to Galilee again in evidence that they still were not ready to ascend.
Yes and where Mark and Matthew went is where Luke and John never want to go. Notice that the difference between 'back to Galilee' and 'ascend to heaven' are contraries as well. That is called a LATE perversion to include the masses who all are an apostle short to get there on their own.The key words here are "should" not perish and have eternal life in that eternity is both in heaven and in hell.To be noted here is that Christ is alive in Paul and not the law, and if justice still is sought through the law Christ has died in vain. Paul goes on to call those who seek their justice in the law bewitched believers already in Gal.3:1 . . . to identify the opposite of heaven here on earth as human still.MUST LOVE equals flattery and is not love at all.And so to love the Lord your God is to love your own self in the unity of Christ and only then can 'love your neighbor' be as to love yourself.Indeed they are not synoptic at all but are contraries to each other, which must be obvious if Matthew and Mark's Jesus returned to Galilee while in Luke and John he went to heaven and not back to Galilee.

So indeed both present eternity on earth as human with the only difference that Paul was a slave to [the love of] Christ without the law, and that he elaborates in all he ever wrote. This is specifically noted in Gal.5:1-4 with verse 4 reading: "Any of you who seek your justification in the law have severed yourself from Christ and fallen from God's favor."

Bottom line: A Christian (tm) already proves himself a lier if he goes to church (and that sure made the job of the Inquisitor easy).

Jayrok

aa5874,

I wanted to bring this conversation to your thread as it was more off-topic in the other thread.

You posted:

This does not mean that they have never heard of Jesus of Nazareth.

From Chapter VIII:

"But Christ--if He has indeed been born, and exists anywhere--is unknown, and does not even know Himself, and has no power until Elias come to anoint Him, and make Him manifest to all. And you, having accepted a groundless report, invent a Christ for yourselves, and for his sake are inconsiderately perishing."

Likewise, this does not mean that Jews hadn't heard of Jesus of Nazareth. He is only saying that the messiah, according to the Jews, has not yet come. He is claiming that the Christ, when he comes, will not even know he is the Christ until he is annointed and made known to all. Trypho knows of Jesus the Galilean, but doesn't consider him the "Christ" that is to come.

Trypho goes on in Chapter X:

Moreover, I am aware that your precepts in the so-called Gospel are so wonderful and so great, that I suspect no one can keep them; for I have carefully read them. But this is what we are most at a loss about: that you, professing to be pious, and supposing yourselves better than others, are not in any particular separated from them, and do not alter your mode of living from the nations, in that you observe no festivals or sabbaths, and do not have the rite of circumcision; and further, resting your hopes on a man that was crucified, you yet expect to obtain some good thing from God, while you do not obey His commandments."

Trypho was aware of the stories in the gospels and was aware of Jesus of Nazareth. He knew that Christians believed Jesus was crucified and was resurrected.

However, being a Jew who did not believe this Jesus (that he had heard and read about) was the Christ. To him, Jesus was simply a man who was killed on a tree... so he could not have been the Christ/Messiah.

Your claim that up to the mid 2nd century based on Justin Martyr there was no evidence that Jews knew of any character called Jesus Christ is unfounded and unsupported from the discourse between Justin Martyr and Trypho.

Trypho said that he was aware of the gospel stories and the belief that Christians had faith in a man (called Jesus) who was crucified. He didn't believe the true Christ had yet come, but that doesn't mean he had never heard of Jesus. This discourse is certainly compatible with the possibility that Jews had heard of Jesus the Galilean.

aa5874

Arguments are based on DATA--NOT the UNKNOWN.

Your argument is based on the UNKNOWN.

In effect, your argument is baseless or imaginative.

My argument can be REVIEWED when NEW DATA is found.

We HAVE DATA.

We have the Recovered Dated manuscripts and Compatible sources.

We have the Existing Dated Codices, the Existing Dated manuscripts, and other writings from Apologetic and Non-Apologetic sources.

Sheshbazzar

That is the point. It is too easily argued by cleaving to christian texts are that known and admitted to have been invented latter, and been doctored by church theologians so as to give an appearance of being sequentially and chronologically connected events.

The rational explanation for why the 'Paulines' contain almost nothing of Jesus life, or of his sayings, fame, or miracles, and the Gospels nothing of 'Paul's' No Law/ Salvation by Grace theology' is that the two streams developed independently, and in opposition and reaction.
Their basic salvation tenets being fundamentally opposing from inception.

Looking at it from this perspective, it was 'Paul's' initial writings regarding the Gentiles being justified by faith without the works of the Law that served as the genesis of 'christianity'.
And this is thoroughly supported by the content of both The Law of Moses, and by what the Prophets had written concerning the eventual acceptance by YHWH of the 'gentiles' (Nations) as being and remaining distinctively as gentiles, into perpetuity. NOT as transforming into 'Jews', ever.

All this early 'Paul' (or the real Saul of Tarsus) was doing was preaching and opposing against the 'Judaizers' in the synagogues of the Diaspora that were teaching that it was necessary for gentiles to become circumcised and observe the laws, rulings, and rituals of Judaism as a prerequisite to receiving YHWH's acceptance or salvation, basically supporting that the only way for any gentile to ever be saved was by going through the established channels of subjecting themselves to the rituals, requirements, and authority of the Jerusalem Temple priesthood, become circumcised, and hence one of The People - by becoming a Jew.

This was never required by The Laws of Moses, nor even suggested by the writings of the Prophets.

In fact it was forbidden by that very Law for 'righteous gentiles' living among the Jews to dress or to follow most of the Jewish customs, unless they first underwent circumcision and followed ALL of Jewish Laws of the Torah and of decrees of Judaisims recognized religious authorities, and became Jews.

And this is still recognized and practiced among all strict orthodox Jews, 'Gentile' peoples (the Goyim) are NOT welcomed to live among Jews by playing dress-up or 'going through the motions'.
You either officially convert and become a recognized Jew, or you live dress, act, and identify yourself as being a gentile, even if you abide by The Sabbath and the Noachide Laws.
There is no in between. You are either a Gentile or you are a Jew.

It was 'Paul's' (really old Saul the Pharisee's) writings that came first, and were latter heavily edited, expanded, and through many interpolations, and additional forged texts, forged into being a part of a entirely fabricated and bogus christian 'history'.
The real Saul likely never even heard of any such thing as a 'christian', and even if he had, it would only have indicated those gentiles that believed in the Scriptures descriptions of a coming Jewish messiah, ('christos' in Greek) with no idea nor acceptance of any elaborate mythology that any such had ever yet came.

As any Jew can tell you the fictional 'christ' of 'christianity' failed to meet the criteria of The Jews messiah as described in the Prophets.

That fictional 'Jesus' character of the NT cannot be, and certainly is NOT the promised Jewish Messiah of the Prophets.

aa5874

In "Dialogue with Trypho", the Jews did NOT acknowledge any Messiah called Jesus and was waiting for the Messiah to arrive up to the mid 2nd century.

Your claim that Trypho knew of Jesus the Galilean is in error.

Tyrpho claimed he READ the Gospels. It is in the Gospels where he found the Jesus story.

In effect, without the Jesus story in the Gospels Trypho would NOT have known of a character called Jesus Born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

If Trypho knew of an actual Jew with a human father called Jesus and then he would have been able to EXPOSE Justin Martyr as a LIAR--Justin claimed Jesus was Born of a Ghost and a Virgin.

Trypho the Jew did NOT name the actual father of Jesus when Justin claimed his Jesus was born of a Ghost.

Based on the very Synoptics, the Jews did NOT even acknowledge the Son of the Ghost as Christ.

In gMatthew, it is claimed Herod Killed ALL the children two years and below so that he would eliminate the Messiah--the King of the Jews.

There was NO actual King of the Jews who reigned in Judea in the Synoptics.

Even in the Synoptics, Jesus, the Son of a Ghost, commanded that NO-ONE was told he was the Christ.

Jesus in the Synoptics was NOT even a figure of history.

Dialogue with Trypho LXXVIII

Chili

Of course it is but persecuting means 'test religion' and doubt everything it claims to be and put it all in prison until it proves itself as true.

The purpose of Paul was to built the Church that Jesus had promised with those 'big fish' [allegories] that they caught on the other side of the boat, and these are those that Peter dragged to Rome and Paul now wites about. Remember in John 21?

aa5874

What exactly has been doctored?? It is SO easy to say the Pauline writings have been doctored. Are you implying that you know what has been doctored even though you have NO actual evidence??

Now, where is the actual evidence for your Speculation?? The Pauline writings actually MATCH the LATER Epistles---they also contain very little or nothing about the Life, miracles, sayings and fame of Jesus.

1. The Epistle to the Hebrews--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

2. The Epistle of James--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

3. The First Epistle of Peter-- Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

4. The Second Epistle of Peter--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

5. The First Epistle of John--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

6. The Second Epistle of John--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

7. The Third Epistle of John--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

8. The Epistle of Jude--Virtually Nothing of the Life of Jesus.

Again, your claims are wholly baseless. There is NO actual corroborative evidence that the Pauline letters were known by Christians writers like Justin, Aristides, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras and Arnobius.

You don't know what you are talking about. You have ZERO credible sources. You are NOT allowed to invent your own story.

You Believe the propaganda of the Church that Paul was early.

Chili

And this line is the biggest lie that ever has been told, and in fact just the opposite is true.

Rather, that cubicals be built to confess sins in the dark and send the sinner West again to sin some more so that sin may abound . . . until the law comes alive in him and then the sinner died.
Except to label him as forever lost and back to Galilee he goes. Correct, and the Great Commission is the biggest curse on earth [again today] and is precisely why Luke and John tried to do away with it then.

Note here that the great comission is not part of Luke and John and if you want something to say be sure to 'show the stigmata' first and otherwise shut up (John 20-21).